[muawiyah]

In brief, there are a lot of folks around who know better, who get a kick out of justifying murder of the innocent.

We should beware of them.

[Lorianne]

The modern-day assault on Human Embryology began in 1973 in the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade written by Justice Harry Blackmun. He wrote: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." He referred to the "disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology" as being "unable to arrive at any consensus."

There will never be any consensus because science and law are entirely different disciplines. The scientific question is a settled point, human life begins at conception. It seems to me what is left is for the "law" to either concur (and grant legal status to individual human life at its earliest point) or dissent (as it has done).

Either way the law goes it is entirely arbitrary, for law itself is an wholly arbitrary endeavor (unlike science). If there is any objective reason at all to law it is when it makes its declaration to err on the side of caution.

[realpatriot71]

A Human Ebryology class completely changed my whole view of the abortion issue.

" . . . I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . ." Ps. 139:14

[Hibernius Druid]

The author might ask himself why hardly anyone in the professional community thinks his framing of the argument worthy of reply. Methinks he doth protest too much.

[MattAMiller]

How is this a scientific question? In order to bring science to the table we must define life in such a way that it can be objectively determined to be present or non-present.

[MHGinTN]

http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm ... And bump to the top